We live in a strong ‘either or’ world, where we are encouraged to have a signature value-based style; however, a more nuanced ‘both and’ approach may be more useful in leadership.

During my early years as a manager, I struggled with the transition from being an employee to becoming the one in charge. For years I was really a worker who occupied the role of manager. I ended up being the busiest person in the company. I believed I had to lead by example and, to me, the best example I could give was to be seen as someone who would not ask anyone to do something I was not prepared to do myself. This was very important to me.

I ended up being a stressed workaholic and out of my depth! Yet senior management must have seen enough potential to send me on a number of management courses. This eventually led to me getting a senior management role.

At these training courses, I learned about many great approaches to management. I always came back to the business energised and full of ideas on teamwork, people motivation, time management, planning and organising, productivity, cost control, strategy and so on.

Yet, those changes that, in my head, were going to make a difference, never seemed to amount to much. Why was that?

An interaction at a recent forum helped me see the real reason why my approach to change did not work as well as I wanted.

Trusting others

A forum participant – let’s call him Michael – explained that he has implemented a policy of trusting his employees to make their own decisions on how best to achieve the results they had committed to. He never checks where they are or what they are up to. He treats them as if they are suppliers, and it never bothers him what hours they work.

He believes 100 per cent in this way of leading because he experienced – and hated – its opposite. He had worked for an employer who was very controlling and where the emphasis was on making sure people worked the hours they were contracted to. He felt that this was not working for him as an up-and-coming manager, nor for his fellow employees or the business owner. He believed it resulted in employees not giving of their best as they were not trusted to do the best they could. It also blocked their innate motivation and creativity.

Confronting others

Back to his current company: things were going well and the business results had improved after he took charge, but he was aware the company was not achieving anywhere near the potential he believed was possible.

It became evident during performance reviews that a number of employees had noticed and were not happy with the lack of contribution to the business by certain employees. Michael knew exactly what they were talking about. He had spoken with the non-performing employees in question a number of times and after every conversation there was an improvement but it only lasted for a short time.

He realised it was time to be less trusting and more direct. As a result of his direct intervention, two of the ‘problem’ employees left the company. He transferred two employees from other departments to make up the shortfall and recruited two others to take their places. Not alone did output and productivity improve in this department but the overall performance of the business took a leap forward. The feedback he got from other employees was that it was about time he sorted out the bad behaviour. It had been negatively affecting their own motivation and commitment to the company.

Just do your job

After his contribution, the discussion among the group was on how it is important to veer off track from your favourite or ‘valued’ approach when circumstances demand it. You can operate on the basis of trust, but if there are issues with staff, sometimes you cannot avoid not trusting – checking, verifying, correcting. Whilst this may be the antithesis of what you like and believe in, it may be exactly what is called for to secure the future of the company and everyone who works there. Even if it results in the expense and disruption of labour court settlements, it can be worth it for the upswing in morale of staff, provided it is fairly handled, as much as for the business performance.

The forum group also noted that this is in fact the leader doing his or her job. The approach of trusting people to do their best only works when you as a leader are prepared to do your job, in other words to address issues that employees themselves cannot address, even if this means approaching things in a way you normally run a mile from.

We noted how success for Michael had come not from trusting or the opposite of trusting but from his ability to adjust his response depending on the situation that was presented.

Hammer and nails; where I went wrong

As I reflected back on my own management style, I understand better that my inability to tap into the potential of my people was because I was too trusting. I thought everybody thought like me and went around doing everything that had to be done. Of course, this wasn’t the case. As for bringing back what I’d learnt at my latest course, I see now that I was trying to apply a solution to a problem that we may not necessarily have had, or if we did, there were other, more fundamental problems, that needed to be addressed first. My belief in the importance of staying up to date with the latest leadership thinking meant that I often gave too much credence to an approach that was the flavour of the month.

What is the polar opposite of these traits for me? Perhaps taking a more analytical approach, listening, really trying to understand the problem. Perhaps also staying with one issue and seeing it through rather than jumping to the next thing. Most importantly, stopping being busy. Freeing myself up to look around and see what everyone else was doing, or not doing.

The positive I take out of this is that by going about it in the way that I did, I have learned the wisdom of developing a more nuanced approach. This reminds me of a saying by the great psychologist Maslow, the man who identified a hierarchy of human needs. Later in life, as he watched his grandson playing with a rubber hammer, hitting everything in sight, he mused that if the only tool we have is a hammer, then the whole world will look like a nail.

So, what values do you hold that may not be useful in the face of the issues or opportunities you are currently grappling with? And how might you enrich your approach with some polar-opposite values?